<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1977 (10) TMI 43 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45826</link>
    <description>For Customs import restrictions, &quot;manufacture&quot; is read in its ordinary commercial sense, requiring a transformation into a different article with a distinct character or use; mere granulation or filling imported chloramphenicol powder into capsules did not make it Nepalese manufacture, so the exemption from licence did not apply and the import remained prohibited. Liability to confiscation under sections 111 and 112 is independent of seizure under section 110; delayed notice or an order releasing the goods does not by itself bar adjudication or penalty. The article therefore states that the import was unlawful and penalty proceedings could still be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:07:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84353" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (10) TMI 43 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45826</link>
      <description>For Customs import restrictions, &quot;manufacture&quot; is read in its ordinary commercial sense, requiring a transformation into a different article with a distinct character or use; mere granulation or filling imported chloramphenicol powder into capsules did not make it Nepalese manufacture, so the exemption from licence did not apply and the import remained prohibited. Liability to confiscation under sections 111 and 112 is independent of seizure under section 110; delayed notice or an order releasing the goods does not by itself bar adjudication or penalty. The article therefore states that the import was unlawful and penalty proceedings could still be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45826</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>